This Weblog or "Blog" contains articles, events and opinions that support capital punishment in North Carolina and elsewhere. Author(s) of the contents are exercising their rights to free speech which unfortunately is often stifled or ignored by the media.
Contrary to what you might read or hear in the news, North Carolinians should be proud that an occassional and deserved execution is allowed to proceed.
- Wayne Uber

2) Clancy calls the Francis case one of "double jeopardy" because Francis
was subject to executions twice. It was an 8th amendment case, not one of
"double jeopardy", a very different thing. It appears he has no clue what legal double jeopardy means.

3) Murder Rates

O'Brien talks about death penalty states, which have higher murder rates
than do those without the death penalty.

He needs to look at Michigan, the exception that reveals the rule, which is
that murder rates are not how you measure deterrence, as is, easily, seen, by
looking at cities and countries that do or do not have the death penalty,
worldwide (1), or by looking at different cities, towns and neighborhoods,
within any given US state, wherin we can find widely varying crime and murder
rates, whether or not in a state with the death penalty.

4) Deterrence

Mr. O'Brien thinks the deterrent effect of the death penalty is undecided.

The findings that the death penalty deters some are overwhelming (2). That
is not surprising, as all prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a
truism.

The findings that the death penalty deters none do not exist (2). In fact,
I have yet to find anyone that would make such a claim. It is impossible to
defend or to prove.

Therefore, the question is not "Does death penalty deter?" It does. The
only relevant question is "How much does it deters and does it deter more than
life without parole?

The first question will never be answered to anyone's satisfaction. The
anecdotal evidence is overwhelming that the death penalty is an enhanced
deterrent over LWOP (2).

5) AN INNOCENT EXECUTED

Clancy thinks that it is established that Carlos DeLuna was innocent
executed? Not remotely.

Mr. Clancy did you fact check the Columbia U report? I know of no one that
has. It is required, in all case and, particularly, with the primary author. The
prosecutor in the case has already found enough problems (3), that no person who
respects fact checking would even speculate that the Columbia U review confirmed
an innocent executed.

It appears that Clancy presumed he got a full account. Don't presume.

Innocent frauds of the anti death penalty movement have become so common (3),
that extreme caution and thorough fact checking should always be the rule.

You would think journalists would have some clue as to how important that is. It appears that if a claim supports the anti death penalty cause, they just accepted it - common.

6) Innocents at risk

O'Brien says there is no remedy for an innocent executed. True.

O'Brien forgot to
mention that there is no remedy for innocents who die in prison, either, which likely
occurs with higher probability than with an innocent executed (3).

About 5000 die/year within US custody. On average, we have executed about 36/yr. since1976.

In addition, innocents are better protected with the death penalty than
with life without parole (3).

7) O'Brien says only the poor are sentenced to die and that folks are
"sentenced to die, not for the worst crime, but for the worst lawyers". One is a
standard anti death penalty claim, the other a standard saying, respectively, neither of which
is true (4).

8) O'Brien says that jurors are, now, less likely to give a death sentence.
Again, likely some anti death penalty source told him this and he failed to fact
check it.

The significant drop in death sentences is due to a dramatic drop in
murders, which because of similarly dramatic drops in murders and rapes, means
that capital murders have dropped even further, likely, in the 60-80% range.

The United States has had double digit executions, annually, from 1984 -
2011 (5). Murders are, now, at a 43 year low (6). Murder rates
are, now, at a 48 year low (6). Not surprisingly, death sentences are at
a 37 year low (5).

9) O'Brien finds the death penalty arbitrary and capricious.

Based upon the facts, I don't know how anyone could view the death penalty
as anything but the least arbitrary and capricious sanction (7).

10) O'Brien says that the poor and those with little to no education are
more likely to receive the death penalty.

The poor are most likely to commit murder and, therefore, are much more likely to receive it and those on death row have a
median education of the 12th grade.

Did they not consider those realities?

11) O'Brien says that the race of the victim is a real problem in death
penalty cases. Hardly. It just so happens that whites are, overwhelmingly, the
victims in capital murders (8) . Does he know that white murderers are twice as
likely to be executed as are black murderers (8)?

Probably never even considered it.

12) O'Brien says that if the victim is white and the perpetrator poor a
death sentence is more likely than not.

Absurd to the point of the ridiculous or delusional.

Of 700,000 murders since 1973, 8300 have been sent to death row. The
overwhelming "more likely than not" is a sentence less than death, 98.8% of the
time.

13) Both Clancy and O'Brien complain about how long the appeals process is,
but, somehow, failed to mention Virginia, which executes within 7.1 years of
sentencing and has executed 72% of those so sentenced, 108 murderers
(9).

It appears that both Clancy and O'Brien just decided to accept a bunch of anti death penalty claims, with no fact checking and no critical thinking.

NOTE: Note, either subjectively or objectively, the crimes for which
murderers are sent to death row are truly horrific and are the worst of crimes.
There are some examples of very poor lawyering in some death penalty cases but,
overwhelmingly, we are looking at good defense counsel with horrendous clients,
the opposite of O'Brien's nonsense.